View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Judicial case stylings Act

Amendments
2. Section 4.1 of the Judicial Offices Act shall be amended to read as follows:

4.1 When a Court is formed and a case brought before it, the case is to be named as follows:
[CASE NUMBER] [PLAINTIFF NAME]v[DEFENDANT NAME]-[CHIEF JUSTICE][DATE]
The public record kept by the court must then outline the name and charge of the defendant, the name of the Chief Justice, the name of the Plaintiff and the names of the Associate Judges. This record shall be updated to list witnesses called and by whom.

Alright so this is mainly to split it from the JoA amendment act because honestly the current case format is somewhat insane.

I went ahead and fixed the coding errors.    Sounds pretty straightforward, though.

Does the chief justice's name have to be included in the topic title, since they'll be the one posting it and it will be listed in the actual topic?  It just seems a little redundant.

It's more-so to make it easier to reference.

Fair enough.

The period for this discussion has long since passed.  Would anyone care to make a motion?

Uh motion to extend discussion. I have a question.

I second.

The motion to extend debate passes.  Debate will resume until Sunday at 2AM PST.

I won't be here right on time to end the debate and ask for a motion since I don't get home until about 2:30AM PST from karaoke (not that it's a great deal since most of you aren't on by then ), but yeah.

So what happens when a case lasts longer than a month and we get a new chief justice?  Do they edit the post?  Make a new thread? This is ambiguity.

Honestly I think we could deal with that in the general amendment thread. this is just to change one small section of it to just look better....

It just makes more sense to me to put it here than to have two different acts amending the same portion of law - especially considering those two acts were debated simultaneously.

I agree with Point Breeze. We really should start adding things as we think of them, instead of creating a million different bills when a hundred would do.

It would also save the future UH from a headache if they choose to repeal or amend anything.

Motion to extend debate for 5 days.